6.11

Object

Representation ID: 2321

Received: 13/02/2023

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Stanley and Daphne Fisk

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

(N.B. This representation was submitted by Mrs Daphne Fisk)

Too many houses already

Ruin the small and quaint charm of Bawburgh.

Too busy and dangerous road to support this housing project.

This is going against the environmental sustainability of this village and make Norfolk healthier, because you’re not. You will be doubling the private car use in Norfolk by putting properties in small villages that cannot cope with the amount of housing!

It is completely barbaric!

Object

Representation ID: 2347

Received: 17/02/2023

Respondent: Mrs Amy Buxton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Lack of suitable infrastructure for 35 new homes.
Danger of more fatalities as traffic increases through the rat run.
Borders up to conservation area.

Object

Representation ID: 2359

Received: 17/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Gavin Buxton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Lack of suitable infrastructure for 35 new homes.
Danger of more fatalities as traffic increases through the rat run.
Borders up to conservation area.

Object

Representation ID: 2500

Received: 27/02/2023

Respondent: Collins & Coward Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Only 1 ha should be allocated at a density of 9 units per hectare. The development should be bungalows.

Object

Representation ID: 2582

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Kate Smallwood

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

35 dwellings is a large development for the size of village - a village of historical character with multiple listed buildings. It means maybe up to an additional 150 residents. The existing village population was 595 in 2011 - for one development to bring a 25% population increase is not balanced. It might be reasonable to assume a 25% increase in traffic volume which is unsafe in a village with so few pavements or safe crossings of the main road.

Object

Representation ID: 2721

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Underwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The constraints and sensitivities related to the plan should lead to it not going ahead. 35 dwellings in a such a small area would be high density and not of adequate size particularly if they are limited to a low roofline. This increase would be significant when compared to the size of Bawburgh as a whole.

Object

Representation ID: 2747

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs E Tolhurst

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Planned number of properties per ha is too dense. Better ratios suggested for other developments under this scheme that would better match the usual density of housing in Bawburgh. Too many new houses given the current size of the village. Village has already had recent new developments adding to the pressures on the infrastructure and reducing the infiltration of water as land has been tarmacked and built over.

Object

Representation ID: 2775

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Mike Smallwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Section A.7. states “Paragraph 69 of the NPPF notes the importance of small and medium sized sites, up to 1 hectare in size”. Given the proposed site in Bawburgh is 1.4 hectares, this implies a “large site”. Therefore this is totally unacceptable in a small village, not clustered with any others.

35 houses within a 1.4 hectare site is not in keeping with the current density of other groups of housing in the village, contradicting SNVC objective 3. It is also based on the council's spacing criteria for urban settings, and not appropriate for a rural setting as in Bawburgh.